So has anyone come up with a convincing argument yet why a member of the public (even in a place as **** up on guns as the US) needs to own multiple assault rifles? More weapons with more firepower than you could ever need to use in self-defence?

Yes, it’s so you can overthrow a dystopian/ authoritarian government innit.

There are so many levels of irony to that, that it’s mind boggling.

Liberal or Jewish dystopias, other dystopias are okay though. In fact, they will be enforced by “I can’t believe it’s not terrorism” attacks on synagogues and the liberal media.

So has anyone come up with a convincing argument yet why a member of the public (even in a place as **** up on guns as the US) needs to own multiple assault rifles? More weapons with more firepower than you could ever need to use in self-defence?

Yeah, this is easy, and I’ll let you into a well-kept secret.  It’s the actual and only answer to any US gun-related question:

Many Americans really like guns.

That’s it.  Anything else – self defence, protect our schools, pest control, blah blah etc etc – is simply misdirection from the real reason.

Don’t forget communists too raybanwomble.

So what you’re saying, is that it’s actually gun culture across the states and not ownership rates that accounts for that fairly strong correlation coefficient?

I might be saying lower gun ownership is the result of different gun culture in those states, rather than more or less restrictive gun law.

Most deaths are suicides, that’s much harder to fix than banning guns and needs a proper discussion , diagnosis and treatment of mental health – though removal of a “quick fix” would reduce numbers a lot like putting pills in blisters did here (something else they don’t/won’t do in the US).

The mental health check barring purchase thing is a complete red herring for several reasons in practice:

1) diagnosis is very very poor, if detection and diagnosis were good it might work, as it is, it would just be another thing for the NRA to say “well we gave you that, it didn’t work”

2) It’s not something you necessarily have when you purchase your sodding huge arsenal of weapons 3 years ago. Nor is it something you can’t necessarily recover from, it develops with time in most people, and in many it gets better or worse as time goes on. It’s like refusing people insurance to drive because they have got drunk in the past.

3) It’s a penalisation rather than treatment. Rather than tell people “sorry you can’t have a gun” really it needs a push to deal with mental illness. Sweeping away another symptom of societies unwillingness to deal with things it doesn’t like really doesn’t fix anything.

I’m going to make a silly comparison but bear with me.

Its legal to own a bike in the UK, it’s legal in the Netherlands.

Less people here own bikes than in the Netherlands because we don’t have a bike culture like they do in the Netherlands.

More people are injured or killed on bikes here than in the Netherlands.

Its commonly said increasing bike ownership and riding would increase safety.

So, if you gave everyone in the UK a bike and didn’t change their attitude or behavior would you decrease the number of accidents involving cyclists? No.

If you took away everybody’s bike in the UK, would you decrease the number of accidents involving cyclists? Yes. Would you solve the underlying issue which led to those accidents in the first instance no, you’d just move the accidents to cars. (Though likely there’d be less since people are more worried about crashing their car into other cars than soft squishy people).

You might solve mass shootings [killings] by taking away peoples’ right to buy guns but you don’t solve the problem of the willingness to kill people.

Murder rates in the UK climb continuously after ’66 and ’94, despite the banning of various weapons at those points.

So ok, I’ll concede the point you might solve gun violence by banning guns, but you don’t fix anything in terms of violence (you might reduce suicides but in the uk its about 10/100k vs 13/100k in the US so not hugely different, 1989 in the uk vs 1999 sees a decrease of 0.5/100k five years either side of the f(a) act, late 80s (recession anyone?) are generally high (89 is a low year for some reason tbf) at around 13-14/100k, 90s are fairly static around 12/100k)

(Murder rates in the UK if you’re interested, Sorry for the long link but I can’t shorten it properly on here https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP99-56/RP99-56.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjq-9yxt8XeAhWKgVwKHXLBBaEQFjANegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw1O6qu8mwDIO8RXbLmIHCDs&cshid=1541702148547 )

Well dangerous brain. You went for quantity there.. .. So you think the UK shouldn’t have a gp/mental health chat before getting a shotgun license or repeat checks or mandatory reporting if situations change?

Think you could explain all that to a parent who’s kid just got killed?

That deserves a more considered response on my part dangerourbrain. I might have to reply tommorto as I’m commuting soon.

So you think the UK shouldn’t have a gp/mental health chat before getting a shotgun license or repeat checks or mandatory reporting if situations change?

If that’s what you took from the above i clearly did a very bad job.

Mental health problems are the thing you need to deal with here, owning a gun or applying for a license for one should, in no way, be the trigger for that.

I’m saying greater gun control fixes nothing but the number of people being killed with guns so, if that’s what you want to fix that’s what you do.

If you want to fix the number of people being killed it makes no actual difference to that (or at least didn’t appreciably in the uk)

I think Sam’s allowing for us to jump to conclusions, (copying and pasting on iPad so may not work correctly….)

“Suffice it to say, if a person enters your home for the purpose of harming you, you cannot reasonably expect the police to arrive in time to stop him.

When on earth is this a likely scenario, ever?  Who breaks into someone’s home just to give the owner a kicking?  If this is a real concern for you then the real problem isn’t weaponry, is it.”

i don’t believe the intention is for the sole purpose of causing you harm, the inference I made was an armed intruder (eg. crack head in dire need of cash) in your home (knife, maybe just a baseball bat, worse case also a gun), you and family are upstairs but awoken. Go downstairs armed with a gun and there is the chance you survive before the intruder goes upstairs and confronts you.

the next quote is the conundrum or the riddle.

“But when I contemplate atrocities of this kind, I do not think of “gun control”—because it seems extraordinarily unlikely that a deranged and/or evil person will ever find it difficult to acquire a firearm in the United States. 

… umm, because there’s lax gun control?  Dime Bar?“

This is kind of the point I took from the article. The horse has bolted and we are struggling to fit a new lock. It’s gone past the point of banning guns, but tighter gun control is also not the only solution. They need to accept that with the millions of guns sold that atrocities are going to happen. That may be a toddler killing his sibling by accident or someone with mental health issues.

I’d certainly agree about trained individuals struggle to hit under pressure. I can’t recall the exact numbers but as an example of real life battles, be worth looking at the attack on camp bastion in 2012. 15 attackers, 14 insurgents killed, 2 US servicemen killed. But it’s the number of rounds fired that show how it’s not like the movies. Thousands of rounds fired in a 4.5 hour fire fight.

My personal view is that I agree with some of what Sam says. The solution isn’t just in applying tighter gun controls. But that is part of it. Mental illness, yep agree that needs looking into. But we also need to explore why people feel the need to defend themselves with guns? Is it because local crack heads are armed and robberies are frequent? Is it Hollywood dramatisation of LA and New York life? Why is the gang culture so prominent in big cities. Why do we allow the glorification of the gangster life? What can be done to fix the genuine huge disparity in wealth? How do they reduce the availability of hard drugs? What prospects are available to young, black children in inner city schools?

Apologies if this is worded poorly, on an iPad mini and a pain to type.

This I completely agree with by dangeoubrain…..

”You might solve mass shootings [killings] by taking away peoples’ right to buy guns but you don’t solve the problem of the willingness to kill people.”

If you have nothing, you have nothing to lose. Ridiculously simplistic last sentence by me. But is that where the dehumanising and the lack of empathy towards each comes into it. If Dan the crack head cant get a gun, a knife will do. Same crime happened, different weapon, same potential outcome.

anyway time for my Sufferfest training session….joy!

”You might solve mass shootings [killings] by taking away peoples’ right to buy guns but you don’t solve the problem of the willingness to kill people.”

If you have nothing, you have nothing to lose. Ridiculously simplistic last sentence by me.

Take away the method of being able to do that and you make a difference, see the simple thing about reducing the size of paracetamol packs. It gave people time to think and stop.

It’s not something you necessarily have when you purchase your sodding huge arsenal of weapons 3 years ago.

No, but you’re looking short term.  Tightening control now will have a trickle-down effect in ten, twenty, a hundred years’ time.

i don’t believe the intention is for the sole purpose of causing you harm, the inference I made was an armed intruder (eg. crack head in dire need of cash) in your home (knife, maybe just a baseball bat, worse case also a gun), you and family are upstairs but awoken. Go downstairs armed with a gun and there is the chance you survive before the intruder goes upstairs and confronts you.

A crack head in dire need of cash, sure, take the cash.  I have insurance and it’s preferable to turning my living room into the OK Coral.

No, but you’re looking short term.  Tightening control now will have a trickle-down effect in ten, twenty, a hundred years’ time.

I’m not sure how that trickles, do you think [gun owner] is more likely to surrender their weapons in however many years time when they’re diagnosed with something because checks at time of purchase make them think it’s a bad thing to mix than they would be if those checks weren’t made (as now)?

The trickle you’re looking for is a complete change in people’s views about guns and gun ownership, simply changing the law (imo) won’t have that effect.

So has anyone come up with a convincing argument yet why a member of the public (even in a place as **** up on guns as the US) needs to own multiple assault rifles?

Why do people have cars that can do 150mph? (Edit fwiw i don’t think either is a good idea)

I categorically do not agree with the idea that less guns do not lead to less overall deaths in the case of the USA. If you make it harder for people to obtain them, they are simply less likely to go on a rampage that kills dozens of people. It is much harder to achieve the losses of life we see in the states, using only a knife – even vehicular attacks aren’t as effective.

Guns are chosen over knives for a reason, they are a much more effective weapon.

Can you post the data that  shows there was a commensurate increase in knife murders, in the UK when pistols and semi autos were banned?

I’m not sure either.  Point was, “it won’t make any difference right now” is a crap argument for not even trying.  If better checks and balances now means it averts one mass shooting in a couple of decades’ time, isn’t that a net gain?

You can’t change people’s attitudes overnight, of course.  You can totally do it over generations though.  Gay people can get married here these days, who’d a thunk it.  When did we last burn a witch?  Some folk will always be douchecanoes, but you can change what society broadly deems acceptable given enough time.  When did you last see someone driving without a seatbelt?

it needs a considered and pragmatic approach to policy.

But there is clearly no appetite to consider change to policy.

So has anyone come up with a convincing argument yet why a member of the public (even in a place as **** up on guns as the US) needs to own multiple assault rifles?

Marketing?

Can you post the data that

Erm. I’m trying but failing for some reason the image just loads as a place holder.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03805/SN03805.pdf

Page 2.

The blip in 2002 is for Harold Shipman.

Same info (same source no doubt)

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03805/SN03805.pdf

Various locations.

No mention from me of increased knife crime, just that the headline rate doesn’t fall. (You’ll notice the rate for 94 and 66 on those isn’t off trend despite the mass murder of 15 and 16 people respectively.)

The reality is most firearms deaths are suicide, (i tried to find numbers for the impact of repackaging paracetamol but short of paying a Lancet *sub was struggling (summary on that said significant mind).

What’s left will (largely) follow the same pattern as ever, in the US that will currently include gun accidents just as much as it will have done here prior to 66/94. I don’t have numbers for that, I assume they fell but I’ve no idea of that’s from 1 an hour or 1 per year. Better handling, storage and respect would fix a lot of the US ones though which i guess are high.

Unfortunately the vast majority of murders of any sort are domestic and, regretably when handy jim comes home from the pub one evening in a particularly foul mood, not having a gun means he won’t shoot his wife (women make up a very high proportion of victims) instead he chokes/beats or stabs her to death but, the reality is, he still kills her.

Banning guns changes headlines, that’s about it.

*Lancet article of anyone has a sub and fancies pulling the numbers. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(00)02355-2/fulltext

But there are all sorts of compounding factors that have not been controlled for that could be hiding a reduction in deaths. Just because the historical data shows an upward trend even after guns were clamped down on does not indictate that there would be no effect restricting guns in the US. It could be that the murder rate in the UK would have been even higher had they not be controlled more.

What percentage of murders were carried out using firearms before Dumblane?

You might solve mass shootings [killings] by taking away peoples’ right to buy guns but you don’t solve the problem of the willingness to kill people

Of course not. But to kill someone, you need both intent and means. When guns are widely available, you are giving people with intent the means to kill a lot of people quickly. I’d guess the remote nature of shooting someone also lowers inhibitions about killing; it’s easier to fire a gun at a distance than it is to get up close to another human being and actually push a knife into them. I’d also hazard a guess that guns make suicide easier, compared to other methods which require more preparation, and are potentially much messier and less likely to complete.

What percentage of murders were carried out using firearms before Dumblane?

Circa 80 p.a. down to 25 p.a. ish and falling so really very low already (though not wishing to draw parallels where there are none, knife crime has increased over the last few years, in my mind much more to do with lesser punishment and ease of concealment than availabity).

Circa 80 p.a. down to 25 p.a. ish and falling so really very low already (though not wishing to draw parallels where there are none, knife crime has increased over the last few years

However, the overall murder rate was on an upward trend well before 97, so we need to find a way to statistically control for that before we make a conclusion about the effectiveness of gun control legislation.

I’d also hazard a guess that guns make suicide easier, compared to other methods which require more preparation

I’d completely agree on that, though year on year figures don’t seem to, they didn’t drop dramatically here when we banned handguns (sorry nothing better than wiki).

Hence looking for the paracetamol figures (damn you Lancet paywall) to see what impact that had.

When guns are widely available, you are giving people with intent the means to kill a lot of people quickly.

The thing with this is it doesn’t really happen outside the US, twice here nearly 30 years apart. Breivik in Norway. They’re notable for being unusual, it’s not in the states, not at all (see above post about it not being on the news in the U.S.) it’s not access to guns that drives it or it would be much much more common worldwide.

 it’s not access to guns that drives it or it would be much much more common worldwide.

Access and attitude then, we can control one of them. At the very least people are advocating for sensible things like background checks and limits on ott weapons that have no purpose other than mass killing. It would have stopped several of this years attacks and at worst reduced the severity of them significantly.

Many states in the US have sensible restrictions on many weapons. It would have saved lives.

From what I understand your average member of the public cannot easily buy an assault rifle or any automatic weapon for that matter. The AR-15 stands for Armalite rifle -15. A semiautomatic rifle.

so we need to find a way to statistically control for that before we make a conclusion about the effectiveness of gun control legislation.

Gun crime was a very small percentage of murders in the UK, even if all those killings were mitigated, you’d not change the overall rate by even 1%. The point is more its a tiny % without gun control, why was it a tiny % here yet huge in the US?* We know it’s not skewed results (100% of murders in Lichtenstein in 2014 were firearm related because there was only one, Saudi has high gun ownership but reports 0 gun murders)

(Sorry that’s rather my fault, trying to make a point and cook dinner at the same time i lost track a bit and went in the wrong direction)

But for example France and Finland all have gun homicide rates that are six times higher than the UK. As high as the Philippines. They also have somewhat higher overall murder rates.

why was it a tiny % here yet huge in the US?

Because overall ownership was still much lower.

Of course culture makes a difference, but it’s a logical fallacy to then say, therefore ownership doesn’t make a difference.

The AR-15 stands for Armalite rifle -15. A semiautomatic rifle.

And can also dispense a high rate of shots its a device that has no real purpose outside of a range or a killing situation.

Access depends on state, utah for instance has a just about anything goes attitude but you can’t have one in the chamber of your seminauto or brew a beer over 5%

From what I understand your average member of the public cannot easily buy an assault rifle or any automatic weapon for that matter. The AR-15 stands for Armalite rifle -15. A semiautomatic rifle.

Very true, the ar15 is vilified for two reasons, number 1 it looks like an assault rifle especially in the press here where the average audience has no idea what a gun looks like outside of the tv. 2nd it’s very easy to mod to allow near automatic fire using bump stocks and the like.

I can’t actually remember the last time i heard of someone using a genuine automatic in one of these, it’s been modded weapons or hand guns by and large.

At the very least people are advocating for sensible things like background checks and limits on ott weapons that have no purpose other than mass killing.

For what it’s worth i don’t think those things are, in conjunction with other measures, a bad thing. On their own i think they’re a pointless waste of time that will play into the hands of the gun lobby when they prove largely ineffectual. (Actually no they don’t have to be largely useless, just once).

There are so many levels of irony to that, that it’s mind boggling.

Also a tad hopeful as well. Those uprisings which have been successful tend to have a lot of foreign aid and also avoids going head to head with the oppressors. If you want to plan for this scenario far better to be learning chemistry and electronics so you can build some bombs instead.

The AR-15 stands for Armalite rifle -15. A semiautomatic rifle.

Depends if you put a bump stock on it. Plus assault rifles aint always fully automatic anyway and, even when they are, soldiers are generally trained to stick to semi auto.

Of course culture makes a difference, but it’s a logical fallacy to then say, therefore ownership doesn’t make a difference.

My (rambling) point is fixing “ownership” won’t work. Fixing culture will and will necessarily fix ownership.

France and Finland all have gun homicide rates that are six times higher than the UK

With much much higher levels of ownership (30%+ for both?) Vs about 1.8 million in legal circulation in the UK, 1.4 of which are shotguns. So about 3% ownership based on 66m population.

Culture is fixed top down by government telling people what is and what isn’t morally acceptable, see anti-hate laws.

Gun control would change American machismo culture as well.

With much much higher levels of ownership (30%+ for both?) Vs about 1.8 million in legal circulation in the UK, 1.4 of which are shotguns. So about 3% ownership based on 66m population

So two, modern socialist European countries with lower levels of inequality have more guns and higher overall murder rates?

See, we can both cherry pick data points.

Culture is fixed top down by government telling people what is and what isn’t morally acceptable, see anti-war laws.

I’d definitely argue that’s the wrong way around. I, and i don’t think I’m speaking out of turn when i say the majority of my generation, don’t think being homosexual, same sex marriage, having an abortion, women’s education and thousands of other things are morally acceptable because the government decriminalised them (or made them legal). IMO the government did that because public opinion and common morality said they should.

IMO the government did that because public opinion and common morality sod they should.

Pretty sure Lord Arran, Humphrey Berkley and Jenkins were going against majority opinion in the UK on homosexuality.

The plebs are led, kicking and screaming into the future.

So two, modern socialist European countries with lower levels of inequality have more guns and higher overall murder rates?

I’m not sure where you’re getting the numbers for France but I’d be intrigued to know how it scores for lower inequality (or murder rates for that matter since my first Google result suggests broadly similar, higher in the UK http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-Kingdom/Crime – i can’t vouch for the numbers or the site, as i say first Google result).

Wiki for the gun homicides and murder rate. Wifes old textbook for inequality.

It seems pretty safe to assume that so far, the data doesn’t rule anything out.

 Gun crime was a very small percentage of murders in the UK, even if all those killings were mitigated, you’d not change the overall rate by even 1%

Sorry bad maths.

16/mil pop = roughly 1000per annum so 80 would be a big enough % change. Was thinking 16/100k.